san4
The Mas
+311|6658|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

c) Installation of ones own 'hardline' regime in Iraq copper-fastens the US' position as 'global bad-boy and imperialist shitheads'. It's as simple as that.
QFT

CameronPoe wrote:

d) Sudan is no concern of yours, mine, my government or your government because human lives are cheap.
fixed
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

You seem to have become incredibly imperialistic. Let me point out some things:

a) There is no 'conquer or be conquered' - that is patent nonsense. If you really think there is some risk of the globe being dominated by any one power or creed then you have lost it, I'm sorry.
I was talking about the general course of history.  I know what you mean.  I'm not someone who believes that Islam is going to take the world over or anything like that.  I also don't believe that China or Russia will either.  I just believe that countries currently suffering from chaos must be dealt with by international forces.  The conquering thing I mentioned is a suggestion that being interventionist is no different from any other part of history.

Even before we saw the advent of modern warfare, conquest was a common theme throughout history.  What we're doing in Iraq is only different in the sense that we now face a situation where we have to create a stable government that is different from our own.  We haven't chosen to completely assimilate the Iraqis, but a little assimilation isn't such a bad thing.

CameronPoe wrote:

b) All nations are at a different stage of evolution/maturity from the artic to the antartic. There is no 'fast forward' button. Irish resistance to the British occupation, which in the 26 counties lasted some 800 years, never ceased or diminished.
The difference with Ireland is that your people were united culturally.  While there are divisions in Northern Ireland, your people were united in the rest of Ireland.  That is why you were able to successfully fend off the British and why you currently have a functioning unified culture.

With Iraq, there are 3 major ethnic groups that want to kill each other.  Without a brutal dictator in charge, there is only chaos.  We must replace Saddam with someone equally forceful (but perhaps a bit saner).

In general, I would agree that most cases of instability should be dealt with internally.  I really don't want us to invade Pakistan, and it should only be done if things go off the deep end.  I'm just saying that intervention should always be an option as a last resort.

CameronPoe wrote:

c) Installation of ones own 'hardline' regime in Iraq copper-fastens the US' position as 'global bad-boy and imperialist shitheads'. It's as simple as that.
Agreed, but I think we need to liberate ourselves of this false morality we supposedly promote.  No country that is interventionist is doing it for spreading democracy.  That much we can agree on.  I would much rather we become a nation known for being ruthlessly pragmatic in dealing with enemies or disorder in general.

A responsible superpower must effectively bring together its allies (mostly Europe in our case) toward stabilizing trouble areas.  If we do not promote order, we disrupt the global economy.  In the end, global capitalism should be our primary concern.

I can assure you that global capitalism really is the primary interest of most First World nations, so this isn't just an American thing.  The only thing that makes us unique in this regard is our ability to militarily support our interests.  We are currently the only country truly able to force our interests on the rest of the world.  This is why I'd like the EU to become more militarily powerful so that they can balance things out.

Together, I think America and the EU could make the world a much better place.  The problem is that our internationalists have become overzealous.  We are trying to attack countries with stable governments.  We should leave Iran and Venezuela alone.  We should also leave North Korea alone.  The only countries we should deal with through intervention are the unstable ones.  The stable countries that we have disagreements with are ones we should seek diplomatic solutions with.

CameronPoe wrote:

d) Sudan is no concern of yours, mine, my government or your government.
I disagree.  We have let Africa fall apart for too long.  We must fix the Darfur situation or it may spread even more disorder than there already is throughout Africa.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-09 11:43:58)

Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
These Iraqi women should not be threatened with death because they choose not to wear a headscarf, culture or not.  They are Iraqi citizens and have a right not to be threatened like that.  This is far different than the elected Iraqi government putting monetary penalties or jail time in place for refusal to wear a headscarf.  In a case like that, it would not be our place to impose our viewpoint imho.  In this case, where lives are being threatened, something needs to be done.
jord
Member
+2,382|6648|The North, beyond the wall.

Stingray24 wrote:

These Iraqi women should not be threatened with death because they choose not to wear a headscarf, culture or not.  They are Iraqi citizens and have a right not to be threatened like that.  This is far different than the elected Iraqi government putting monetary penalties or jail time in place for refusal to wear a headscarf.  In a case like that, it would not be our place to impose our viewpoint imho.  In this case, where lives are being threatened, something needs to be done.
Exactly what I'm thinking. Christian women have nothing to do with Muslims. Making every women in the country follow a Muslim belief regardless of their own feelings or religion is insane.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

d) Sudan is no concern of yours, mine, my government or your government.
Well that's a relief.  Thank god we have you to determine what is important.  Come to think of it, you should be who everyone asks about everything since you have all the answers on what is important and what is not.  I am glad you see all the intelligence reports on other countries also.
What is important is the welfare of your own people. What is morally wrong is to rain down suffering and misery on other peoples for financial/strategic reasons.
san4
The Mas
+311|6658|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

d) Sudan is no concern of yours, mine, my government or your government.
Well that's a relief.  Thank god we have you to determine what is important.  Come to think of it, you should be who everyone asks about everything since you have all the answers on what is important and what is not.  I am glad you see all the intelligence reports on other countries also.
What is important is the welfare of your own people. What is morally wrong is to rain down suffering and misery on other peoples for financial/strategic reasons.
Who are his people?
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
How did I enter this part of the conversation?  I'm puzzled tbh.  I thought CPoe was talking to USM2005.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
Doh...  LOL...  Sorry about that...  I'll delete it..

I was reading the post really fast, and I posted before I noticed that USM was the person being responded to.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-09 12:07:48)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

Turquoise wrote:

I was talking about the general course of history.  I know what you mean.  I'm not someone who believes that Islam is going to take the world over or anything like that.  I also don't believe that China or Russia will either.  I just believe that countries currently suffering from chaos must be dealt with by international forces.  The conquering thing I mentioned is a suggestion that being interventionist is no different from any other part of history.

Even before we saw the advent of modern warfare, conquest was a common theme throughout history.  What we're doing in Iraq is only different in the sense that we now face a situation where we have to create a stable government that is different from our own.  We haven't chosen to completely assimilate the Iraqis, but a little assimilation isn't such a bad thing.
Conquest one hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history following the misadventures of Hitler and other such despots. Citing historic examples of conquest does not and will never legitimise it.

Turquoise wrote:

The difference with Ireland is that your people were united culturally.  While there are divisions in Northern Ireland, your people were united in the rest of Ireland.  That is why you were able to successfully fend off the British and why you currently have a functioning unified culture.

With Iraq, there are 3 major ethnic groups that want to kill each other.  Without a brutal dictator in charge, there is only chaos.  We must replace Saddam with someone equally forceful (but perhaps a bit saner).

In general, I would agree that most cases of instability should be dealt with internally.  I really don't want us to invade Pakistan, and it should only be done if things go off the deep end.  I'm just saying that intervention should always be an option as a last resort.
I don't think it is the position of anyone other than Iraqis to decide the direction their country (countries?) take, be that through warfare or otherwise. An imposed solution is just like putting a sticking plaster on something destined to explode and sort itself out at some point again in the not too distant future. I will never advocate intervention outside ones 'sphere of influence' - the middle east not falling into said sphere.

Turquoise wrote:

Agreed, but I think we need to liberate ourselves of this false morality we supposedly promote.  No country that is interventionist is doing it for spreading democracy.  That much we can agree on.  I would much rather we become a nation known for being ruthlessly pragmatic in dealing with enemies or disorder in general.
For some reason though the US, perhaps because it is a nation all about flashy image, has always sought to protect its paper-thin facade of 'altruistic good guy'. People would respect a bit more honesty even if they still disagreed with the interventionist, unilateralist, fingers-in-many-pies
position the US has taken since WWII.

Turquoise wrote:

A responsible superpower must effectively bring together its allies (mostly Europe in our case) toward stabilizing trouble areas.  If we do not promote order, we disrupt the global economy.  In the end, global capitalism should be our primary concern.
This is one point I would fundamentally disagree with. I feel political advancement is a natural progression and 'evolutionary' process. An external party can rarely produce a satisfactory resolution to 'trouble' in divided or frankly directly opposing nations/regions. It is this interfering (and in some cases condescending) attitude that harks back to British days of old where the Brits went around the world spreading 'civilisation' (how nice of them...). The global economy is just fine as it is.

Turquoise wrote:

I can assure you that global capitalism really is the primary interest of most First World nations, so this isn't just an American thing.  The only thing that makes us unique in this regard is our ability to militarily support our interests.  We are currently the only country truly able to force our interests on the rest of the world.  This is why I'd like the EU to become more militarily powerful so that they can balance things out.
I know. Every last 'first worlder' is all over China like a rash at the moment - financial interests promoted through agreements, not at gunpoint. The EU has NO interest whatsoever in developing a position of considerable military might. It's days of violence and annexation are hopefully largely over.

Turquoise wrote:

Together, I think America and the EU could make the world a much better place.  The problem is that our internationalists have become overzealous.  We are trying to attack countries with stable governments.  We should leave Iran and Venezuela alone.  We should also leave North Korea alone.  The only countries we should deal with through intervention are the unstable ones.  The stable countries that we have disagreements with are ones we should seek diplomatic solutions with.
We're too different. The US has now become a political liability in Europe and elsewhere. Berlusconi, Aznar, Blair and Howard ousted or sidelined in the past few years. The whole concept of attacking other sovereign nations in the interests of oil, money, pipelines, competing globally with Russia/China or Israeli security are not what Europe is about and I don't think it ever will be. Our horrid history of imperialism has taught us valuable lessons.

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  We have let Africa fall apart for too long.  We must fix the Darfur situation or it may spread even more disorder than there already is throughout Africa.
Africa is unfixable. It will take centuries for any semblance of an organised and ordered society to prevail there. It's a complete waste of time. You speak of it as if we have some sort of responsibility for it. I'm afraid we don't. They have their independence now and they need to learn how to use it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-09 12:10:07)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Well that's a relief.  Thank god we have you to determine what is important.  Come to think of it, you should be who everyone asks about everything since you have all the answers on what is important and what is not.  I am glad you see all the intelligence reports on other countries also.
What is important is the welfare of your own people. What is morally wrong is to rain down suffering and misery on other peoples for financial/strategic reasons.
Who are his people?
Americans?
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|6519|EUtopia | Austria
Oh really?

I saw that all female competitors of the International Physics Olympics in Isfahan (2007) had to wear headscarfs and that their commendations had to be handed over by a female too, as they were not allowed to shake a man's hand in public.

Now, Isfahan is still in Iran, not in Iraq. What would expect?
san4
The Mas
+311|6658|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

What is important is the welfare of your own people. What is morally wrong is to rain down suffering and misery on other peoples for financial/strategic reasons.
Who are his people?
Americans?
Why not his fellow Christians?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:


Who are his people?
Americans?
Why not his fellow Christians?
Oh I didn't follow where you were coming from. I wasn't so much coming from the 'same creed' angle, more 'same country'.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Conquest one hoped had been consigned to the dustbin of history following the misadventures of Hitler and other such despots. Citing historic examples of conquest does not and will never legitimise it.
Let's just say I have a much less optimistic view of humanity.  I believe periods of conquest are inevitable and that global capitalism necessitates it.  I'm not necessarily saying it's the most moral way of doing things, however.

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't think it is the position of anyone other than Iraqis to decide the direction their country (countries?) take, be that through warfare or otherwise. An imposed solution is just like putting a sticking plaster on something destined to explode and sort itself out at some point again in the not too distant future. I will never advocate intervention outside ones 'sphere of influence' - the middle east not falling into said sphere.
Two things...  I do see the Middle East as our sphere of influence because of the fact that we have so many economic interests there.  We also have military forces there (and had them there long before the second Iraq invasion).  Second, while I agree with you ideally about Iraqis being responsible for their own country, I think that they've shown themselves incapable of handling this sort of thing in a practical sense.

CameronPoe wrote:

For some reason though the US, perhaps because it is a nation all about flashy image, has always sought to protect its paper-thin facade of 'altruistic good guy'. People would respect a bit more honesty even if they still disagreed with the interventionist, unilateralist, fingers-in-many-pies position the US has taken since WWII.
Agreed.  We should be upfront about our real interests.  We should tell the world, "Look, I know you don't like some of what we've done, but ask yourself what you'd do in our position."  We're the most powerful country in the world, so naturally, we're going to push a few countries around here and there.  It doesn't make it right, but it happens.  This is why I keep saying that I hope the EU becomes more militarily powerful so that you guys can balance things out some.

CameronPoe wrote:

This is one point I would fundamentally disagree with. I feel political advancement is a natural progression and 'evolutionary' process. An external party can rarely produce a satisfactory resolution to 'trouble' in divided or frankly directly opposing nations/regions. It is this interfering (and in some cases condescending) attitude that harks back to British days of old where the Brits went around the world spreading 'civilisation' (how nice of them...). The global economy is just fine as it is.
The Romans did a great job of setting up an economic empire.  The British did as well.  The British had to let go of their empire and the Romans fell, but many countries advanced from these influences.  Look at India today and how India was before the British.

Obviously, this isn't true of every area that has been conquered and then given independence, but in the cases where it didn't work, it's usually a case of not finishing the job.  Most of Africa is in shambles because Europe just raped them of resources and then drew up arbitrary borders.  They should have stuck around and modernized these nations.

CameronPoe wrote:

I know. Every last 'first worlder' is all over China like a rash at the moment - financial interests promoted through agreements, not at gunpoint. The EU has NO interest whatsoever in developing a position of considerable military might. It's days of violence and annexation are hopefully largely over.
I would suggest that the EU's current reluctance to rise in military might is that they much prefer America to do the dirty work.

CameronPoe wrote:

We're too different. The US has now become a political liability in Europe and elsewhere. Berlusconi, Aznar, Blair and Howard ousted or sidelined in the past few years. The whole concept of attacking other sovereign nations in the interests of oil, money, pipelines, competing globally with Russia/China or Israeli security are not what Europe is about and I don't think it ever will be. Our horrid history of imperialism has taught us valuable lessons.
I would agree that attacking Iraq was a tremendous mistake.  Saddam had a stable government, so there was no need to invade.  However, when a country becomes as unstable as Sudan, I define them as no longer being sovereign.  A country incapable of ruling itself is not what I consider sovereign.

CameronPoe wrote:

Africa is unfixable. It will take centuries for any semblance of an organised and ordered society to prevail there. It's a complete waste of time.
I disagree.  I believe a century of coordinated effort between the U.S. and the E.U. will modernize them.  Much death will ensue, but death will occur regardless of whether we act or not.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-09 12:29:00)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:


Who are his people?
Americans?
Why not his fellow Christians?
USM is atheist, if I'm not mistaken.  Still, it is a good point.
san4
The Mas
+311|6658|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Americans?
Why not his fellow Christians?
Oh I didn't follow where you were coming from. I wasn't so much coming from the 'same creed' angle, more 'same country'.
Well it's a critical point for your isolationist view. You say I can't intervene on behalf of just anyone, only 'my' people. I want to say 'my' people are all human beings, including people in Sudan, Iran, etc. Where do you draw the line between the people I should care about and the people I shouldn't?
commissargizz
Member
+123|6434| Heaven
With the resurgent Russia and ever Imperialist China can we stand by and watch these 2 super powers take over Africa? I am an interventionist in the right circumstances, Iraq, no, Afghanistan, yes, Dafur yes.
Sudan has no concern for us? Well they had Al-Qaeda training camps, if the US didn't intervene they would be still there churning out their suicide bombers etc.
If I saw some kid being beaten in the street I would help, the same for a different country, they at times need help, we should provide it otherwise some one else will and that someone else could be a lot worse.
Maybe, if everyone was isolationist would the British still be in Ireland? Hitler in control over Europe, if so whats the point of the ever expanding EU.
As for scarves, if they want to wear them let them if they don't let them, but Islam is not like that.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

commissargizz wrote:

With the resurgent Russia and ever Imperialist China can we stand by and watch these 2 super powers take over Africa? I am an interventionist in the right circumstances, Iraq, no, Afghanistan, yes, Dafur yes.
Sudan has no concern for us? Well they had Al-Qaeda training camps, if the US didn't intervene they would be still there churning out their suicide bombers etc.
If I saw some kid being beaten in the street I would help, the same for a different country, they at times need help, we should provide it otherwise some one else will and that someone else could be a lot worse.
Maybe, if everyone was isolationist would the British still be in Ireland? Hitler in control over Europe, if so whats the point of the ever expanding EU.
As for scarves, if they want to wear them let them if they don't let them, but Islam is not like that.
This is basically why I became semi-interventionist.  If we don't intervene, China or Russia will.  It's not that they are trying to take over the world, but it is a matter of powermongering.  We are the world's last superpower, so for us not to play in this game, it's rather silly.

Getting involved is an inevitability.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:


Why not his fellow Christians?
Oh I didn't follow where you were coming from. I wasn't so much coming from the 'same creed' angle, more 'same country'.
Well it's a critical point for your isolationist view. You say I can't intervene on behalf of just anyone, only 'my' people. I want to say 'my' people are all human beings, including people in Sudan, Iran, etc. Where do you draw the line between the people I should care about and the people I shouldn't?
Well personally I'm an atheist and the only groupings I fall under are that of my nation first and EU second and perhaps western world third. Using religion as a pretext for war is precisely the worst reason for me and down through the centuries has caused untold amounts of suffering and bloodshed.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Oh I didn't follow where you were coming from. I wasn't so much coming from the 'same creed' angle, more 'same country'.
Well it's a critical point for your isolationist view. You say I can't intervene on behalf of just anyone, only 'my' people. I want to say 'my' people are all human beings, including people in Sudan, Iran, etc. Where do you draw the line between the people I should care about and the people I shouldn't?
Well personally I'm an atheist and the only groupings I fall under are that of my nation first and EU second and perhaps western world third. Using religion as a pretext for war is precisely the worst reason for me and down through the centuries has caused untold amounts of suffering and bloodshed.
Very true.  I'm atheist as well and feel similarly about humans.  I support Americans first, then mostly Canadians, Australians, and Europeans, and then the rest of the world at the bottom.  The difference is that I use economics as a pretext for war, as well as maintaining order.  I think war should be limited to defense and ending major conflicts like in Darfur and Iraq.
san4
The Mas
+311|6658|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Oh I didn't follow where you were coming from. I wasn't so much coming from the 'same creed' angle, more 'same country'.
Well it's a critical point for your isolationist view. You say I can't intervene on behalf of just anyone, only 'my' people. I want to say 'my' people are all human beings, including people in Sudan, Iran, etc. Where do you draw the line between the people I should care about and the people I shouldn't?
Well personally I'm an atheist and the only groupings I fall under are that of my nation first and EU second and perhaps western world third. Using religion as a pretext for war is precisely the worst reason for me and down through the centuries has caused untold amounts of suffering and bloodshed.
You've said that Iraq is none of America's business. But you've also said that Americans should worry about "their" own people. I'm just trying to figure out who that includes. It doesn't include co-religionists, but it does include citizens of nations, the EU and the Western world perhaps. That sounds rather arbitrary. What about family members? Can Americans who have Iraqi cousins intervene on their behalf? Can Americans who have Iraqi friends try to help them? What affiliations justify intervention and which ones do not? You can't support isolationism if you can't draw that line. And I don't think you can.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6499|Global Command

m3thod wrote:

I don't know where to even begin.

LOL @ Bush.
LOL @ you who praise shitbags who, for lack of an ability to repulse the invaders resort to gunning down woman with their children  because they don't cover up.

You might begin by asking yourself which you prefer; Democracy or Sharia.

If it's Democracy, stfu, if it's Sharia go blow yourself up. If you don't have an opinion, don't chim in with one or two line posts that mean nothing.

Last edited by ATG (2007-12-09 13:12:40)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

m3thod wrote:

I don't know where to even begin.

LOL @ Bush.
LOL @ you who praise shitbags who, for lack of an ability to repulse the invaders resort to gunning down woman with their children  because they don't cover up.

You might begin by asking yourself which you prefer; Democracy or Sharia.

If it's Democracy, stfu, if it's Sharia go blow yourself up. If you don't have an opinion, don't chim in with one or two line posts that mean nothing.
Whoa man...  I know where you're coming from, but that was a bit over the top.

In all honesty, I don't think democracy is really possible in much of the Islamic World, but I highly doubt method would support Sharia Law.  The third option is basically the Saddam one, which unfortunately seems to be the only semi-functional one for Iraq.

We need a new dictator over there.  Maybe Muqtada will suffice.
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6679|Charlie One Alpha
When in Rome...
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6525

san4 wrote:

You've said that Iraq is none of America's business. But you've also said that Americans should worry about "their" own people. I'm just trying to figure out who that includes. It doesn't include co-religionists, but it does include citizens of nations, the EU and the Western world perhaps. That sounds rather arbitrary. What about family members? Can Americans who have Iraqi cousins intervene on their behalf? Can Americans who have Iraqi friends try to help them? What affiliations justify intervention and which ones do not? You can't support isolationism if you can't draw that line. And I don't think you can.
They can individually intervene but the nation itself, a secular nation I might add, has no right to interfere in the internal politics of another nation unless that nation is a real and distinct threat to ones own homeland, in my view. The capital one might own in a particular nation or the interests one might have in a particular nation are subject to the local government, and it is at your own risk that you hold financial interests in another country. Most nations invest in stable countries. On your own head be it if a democratically elected government of a relatively distant nation (say Venezuela) nationalises the oil industry, in which you might have a financial interest. Those are the risks and such matters do not in my mind legitimise military action.

The bottom line for me is this: a nation can only intervene militarily in another nation if that nation poses a very real and imminent threat to ones own homeland. It's as simple as that.

So say if Ireland or an EU member or say the US were invaded then, if the government of either party requested help, then I would see that as helping an ally in a righteous and legitimate cause. Allying to afflict pain on the non-western world is not my bag.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-09 13:21:36)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard